Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: possibly OT: NYT article on GA creationism/evolution debate



At 16:44 -0400 9/1/02, Justin Parke wrote:

I think that evolution goes beyond simply "descent with modification." I do
not believe ANYONE would deny that descent with modification occurs, unless
they have never seen a child. What the debate is about is whether descent
with modification is the mechanism which has produced all the great variety
of living things.

Of course, that is the issue, but the idea of descent with
modification is mightily resisted my some creationists. They have
retreated a bit by creating the distinction between what they call
"micro-evoultion" which most grudgingly accept, and "macro-evolution"
which they claim does not exist (in spite of the evidence in favor of
it). The distinction between the two seems to be that micro-evolution
can not lead to new species, or "kinds," as they are wont to say,
using the ill-defined biblical term. That way, when shown a new
species clearly evolved from an earlier one, they are able to say,
"Well, it's not a different 'kind,' and so it still fits in with
micro-evolution." For instance, the clear fact that dogs, coyotes and
foxes have descended from wolves, they argue that that is just
micro-evolution, since no new "kind" has developed. Keeping the word
"kind" undefined has been very helpful to them.

One of their main arguments is that the modifications are very
improbably, and most are not beneficial, and so the probability of
beneficial evolution creating the diversity seen today is
microscopically low. They are, of course correct that the
overwhelming majority of mutations are not beneficial, but then they
neglect the non-probabilistic side of the equation--natural
selection, which is most decidedly *not* random, and which, when
conditions are right, can allow the most useful of all the random
mutations to become dominant within a surprisingly short generational
span.

Their opposition comes from two prongs: first that the concept of
evolution can, if one is so inclined, imply that the supernatural had
no part in the arrival of humans on earth (but lots of religious
people have reconciled themselves to the facts of evolution without
losing their faith), and secondly, they argue, that if God was not
involved in the creation of humans, and "survival of the fittest," is
the law of the land, how can any moral code be defended? If we teach
our children that they are descended from animals, they will behave
like animals (there are those who argue this has already come to
pass). Again, many religious people have reconciled themselves to
this possible aspect of evolution as well, arguing for God's role in
guiding evolution and with giving humans their immortal soul when
they had achieved a sufficient level of development.

At the base of the moral arguments is, it seems to me, a belief that
humans truly are no better than animals, and are only kept in line by
strict enforcement of Draconian codes of behavior; they have no faith
in people, only in their gods. Given this level of belief in the
essential depravity of humans, it is unlikely that they will ever be
convinced, and the only hope is that, with time, the more strident of
them will die off and their descendents will gradually modify their
views to be more in keeping with the mainstream.

Hugh
--

Hugh Haskell
<mailto:haskell@ncssm.edu>
<mailto:hhaskell@mindspring.com>

(919) 467-7610

Let's face it. People use a Mac because they want to, Windows because they
have to..
******************************************************